It's also not been considered too urgent since they have the sperm and eggs already, they can always put the baby in a Southern White Rhino.
You must also consider the fate of that animal and the security it would require. It might be better to let them go extinct, make a big deal about it, then bring them back. Plus if they did it this way they would get much more recognition verses if they saved the species with a few still living.
The Guardian article is written by someone who is most likely a freelance writer. Their goal is to pump out articles that make attention grabbing claims while staying truthful. The author was not a rhino expert and likely didn't do much journalism research to find the facts people need to know, but some sob story about the last of it's kind is better news (more shares, more likes, more viewers, more ad revenue).
"The Guardian article is written by someone who is most likely a freelance writer"
The Guardian writer, Jonathan Jones, is the art critic for the newspaper. Hence, the links to art history and a very descriptive interpretation of the rhino in the picture ("His head is a marvellous thing. It is a majestic rectangle of strong bone and leathery flesh, a head that expresses pure strength").
The article is part of a series called 'Framing the debate' which the site describes as follows:
"A great photograph doesn't only say more than a thousand words, it can also create a hundred different reactions. In this series we take a close look at contemporary and historical photographs and videos that divide opinion"
Agreed. I think most of us can relate to your sentiment. The world perspective might be the animals, trees, and water are connected to us. When these animals die, it's the canary in the coal mine. Our time is coming. You figure when everything is dying around us it's for a reason. One species over there is a singularity, two species is a coincidence, 25% of all living things is indication that something is terribly wrong and it's only going to get worse.
Sort of, until you realize that 99% of all creatures that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. [1] It's not unnatural for animals to leave the planet and never return, but it's is still sad.
Its more 'natural' if a volcano erupts and kills them all? Or a flood? Or an asteroid? Its not 'normal', I admit that. Extinction by definition can't be a normal event. But natural? I guess if everything man-made is defined as 'unnatural' then sure.
It's amazing that we can throw nuclear weapons at both of those huge objects (volcano and meteor) and there is actually a chance that we can prevent them from destroying the world.
In other news, terrorists and other enemies of the US are trying to make the Yellowstone volcano explode, that's scary. Can we not "cool" the magma under Yellowstone? Maybe even use that heat? Are geothermal plants too expensive?
But it's natural of wolves hunt their prey to extinction and as a result, starve themselves into extinction?
Animals killing animals is still "natural" predator:prey survival. Humans killing an entire species by shooting them isn't any less natural than wolves hunting their primary food source to extinction.
The difference is humans don't go extinct when we kill a species - because we aren't dependent on them as a primary source of survival.
Most animals are foragers (eg. squirrels) or hunters (eg. lions) and some can be both (eg. bears) but very, very few animals are creators of their own food.
I cannot think of any other animal that aids another species in breeding for the sole purpose of consumption for survival. Although I can think of a few bacterium examples or even symbiotic relationships. It's not quite the same level I'm arguing for here.
I cannot think of any other animal that aids another species in breeding for the sole purpose of consumption for survival.
Not quite the same thing you're talking about, but some ants farm aphids to eat something they produce. I would give a citation, but there are a ton if you search, and I don't know if any one is notably better.
>Some farming ant species gather and store the aphid eggs in their nests over the winter. In the spring, the ants carry the newly hatched aphids back to the plants.
I'd say that counts. The others don't seem to be on the "same level" as to what I'm thinking - though the distinction is possibly even arbitrary.
Right, but do the ants practice animal husbandry? Do predatory fish eat the lazy skunk shrimp to ween the herd?
I think the point they were trying to make is that there is no other sapient symbiotic relationships, but there are few sapient species so it's kind of moot.
Animals are far smarter than humans give them credit for [1]. That isn't to say any species comes close to the broad scope of human intellect - but to say that there are not purposeful interactions of survival among other species would be wrong. That is why I said I did not know of one offhand, rather than say they do not exist. Although I could not name one on a level higher than bacteria, I knew it was likely to exist.
Symbiotic relationships are not quite the same - again with my definition arguably being arbitrary. I consider a symbiotic relationship to be when two animals happen to benefit from each other due to their actions and it is not one species using another.
That is the case for most symbiotic relationships I can think of. For example, pilot fish and sharks. Sharks happen to host bacteria that the pilot fish eat. Eating the bacteria is obviously beneficial for the pilot fish and happens to benefit the shark as well. It's not that the pilot fish specifically chose sharks to eat bacteria from. This appears to be happenstance.
Some of the examples of ants and aphids seems to be happenstance. The ants defend an aphid from another creature that eats/destroys the aphids so that the ants can eat it. That's fighting to protect their food source - something I consider "necessary for survival" and not "beneficial for survival".
The case I cited where the ants will harvest the aphid eggs, store them safely for the winter, then bring them back to plants to hatch is along the lines of "beneficial for survival". It's an intentional use of aphids as a food source with what appears to be a methodology of breeding and sustaining their honeydew food source. It's a "step above" a symbiotic relationship in my eyes. [2]
[2] Again, I recognize that where I'm drawing my line might be arbitrary to some people. I hope I explained how I see some of the scenarios as different to one another in a way that other people can understand where I stand. If not, please ask questions.
>>But it's natural of wolves hunt their prey to extinction and as a result, starve themselves into extinction?
The problem is that we aren't starving ourselves into extinction as a result of overkilling rhinos. We're simply moving on to the next species and driving them extinct, then moving on to the next, etc.
So basically, by the time we are extinct, it may be too late.
That's the leap I object to: that somehow losing the rhino's matters one whit to our survival. The popular mythology takes it as a premise. I reject it, as not based on any evidence or reasonable argument. Will my Angus beef dry up because, rhino? No.
>The problem is that we aren't starving ourselves into extinction as a result of overkilling rhinos.
That's my point - and I don't see how it's a problem unless you consider the extinction of the human race a good thing?
>We're simply moving on to the next species and driving them extinct, then moving on to the next, etc.
So it's as if wolves ran out of moose and deer so began hunting rabbits and small game. They still hadn't figured out how to raise their own food and will eventually run out of food sources. Thankfully, humans have the "food sources" problem sorted out. [1]
>So basically, by the time we are extinct, it may be too late.
Late for what? Even "without human interaction" - animals still go extinct. It's a natural thing, even a very normal thing. With 99% of species going extinct I would argue it's not normal for a species to not go extinct.
Humans are largely against other species going extinct though. I guess there's that tinge of guilt for being the "root cause of the problem". Though to pretend it is somehow unnatural and not how the world works is silly and childish. Predators have caused prey to go extinct for hundreds of thousands of years.
[1] Because we grow food and raise animals for consumption. Most species don't do this.
>>Though to pretend it is somehow unnatural and not how the world works is silly and childish. Predators have caused prey to go extinct for hundreds of thousands of years.
Yes, but not at the rate and scale that we are causing species to go extinct. We're essentially the equivalent of a mass-extinction event for most species on the planet.
Furthermore, species in nature tend to be in certain states of equilibrium because every predator is prey for something else. Except humans: we're at the top of the food chain and the only threat we face is from ourselves.
We're more efficient than other animals at the killing of other animals. That does not make it not natural. We, like every other species on Earth, are simply that: A species on Earth. We're just particularly better and more efficient than most animals at Earth for destructive behavior. No other species on Earth can turn an 8 mile plot of land into a barren wasteland devoid of life in a moment with the detonation of a nuclear weapon.
>Furthermore, species in nature tend to be in certain states of equilibrium because every predator is prey for something else.
This is not entirely true, I'll add a new term for your vocabulary: Apex predator [0] There is a reason it is called a "food chain" and not a "food pyramid".
Predators die off because of many reasons. Some are human caused and others aren't. Let's bring a bit of math into this: Lotka-Volterra predator-prey equation [1]
I forget the exact term for population dynamics but "food source goes down, predator population dies off, predator population dying off means more food source survives, more food source means fewer predators die from starvation and the cycle continues". It's possible to reach a point of no return if too much of the prey dies off. This happens, I would like to refer to my wolves example from earlier.
>>We're more efficient than other animals at the killing of other animals. That does not make it not natural. We, like every other species on Earth, are simply that: A species on Earth.
I think you're a bit too focused on the literal definition of the word "natural," and that's rather pedantic. Yes, we're a part of nature. That doesn't mean our actions are ordinary, or like that of other animals. On the contrary, we're incredibly efficient at everything we do, and the impact we're having on the planet is unprecedented. There has never been a species in the entire history of Earth like us. And since we're so vastly different, it's incorrect to treat what we're doing as "natural."
>There has never been a species in the entire history of Earth like us. And since we're so vastly different, it's incorrect to treat what we're doing as "natural."
This is where we are splitting hairs. I find it both unfair and arrogant to argue that it is, somehow, not natural. That humans are somehow above nature.
When the resources we depend on are depleted and become scarce, we'll see population decrease - the same natural limitation placed onto every other species. When the resources (ie. food sources) they depend on deplete. They die off.
This is why "natural power" (eg. wind, solar) is so important. This is why "renewable resources" are so important. This is why figuring out how to recycle materials is important. This is why purifying water is important. This is why getting us off of this planet and into space is so important.
The importance of these things is because our very survival as a species depends on these things.
We are a part of nature. We are subject to the same laws that govern other species. These same laws that cause entire species to go extinct. We are not above these laws. Our very survival as a species depends on recognizing this fact and being fucking terrified of this fact.
E:
I feel we're straying a bit.
There are legitimate and scientific reasons for why causing species to go extinct is bad for humans. We lose valuable data and the ability to research and learn from these species to better understand our world.
"Boo hoo, this beautiful species is now extinct" is not a reason I care for.
The argument of "it's unnatural" is also not compelling. Efficiency does not make it unnatural, it makes it efficient.
You argue that humans are not above nature, yet we are the only species that can instantly (and silently) communicate about abstract topics from and to anywhere in the world.
Humans have the unique ability to notice that animals go extinct, we even have the ability to be gods and decide to bring the species back from extinction or not.
What is lost by losing the NORTHERN White Rhino when the SOUTHERN White Rhino is the same creature, just located in a different area?
Allowing the Northern White Rhino to go temporarily extinct is an amazing ability that ONLY humans have ever had. We can easily bring the species back when we solve the poaching problem. Right now poaching is too expensive to defend against while ensuring a high-quality of life for these animals.
Yes, the poachers will still hunt, but it will be more costly for the poachers and hopefully that will deter them somewhat.
There's a possibility that the Northern White Rhino animal is very different to the Southern White Rhino animal.
> Following the phylogenetic species concept, recent research has suggested the northern white rhinoceros may be an altogether different species, rather than a subspecies of white rhinoceros, in which case the correct scientific name for the former is Ceratotherium cottoni. Distinct morphological and genetic differences suggest the two proposed species have been separated for at least a million years.[18]
There are more important species in endangered status, in my opinion. Millions of dollars for a hopeless cause to save an animal that only has a small genetic difference and very little physical difference.
"The danger in making this sort of suggestion, however, is that changing the taxonomy to suit conservation priority could eventually backfire: it would not look good if zoologists were thought to be tweaking their conclusions in order to suit their favoured conservation projects."
According to WWF, 52% of the Earth's biodiversity has been lost since 1970.
Mass extinction events from millions of years ago are not really relevant to discussion about protecting existing endangered species from human exploitation.
That's very true. But consider: millions of creatures went extinct before our time. What we see today is just those that happened to be extant as we came to civilization. Are they more important than all those that came before? Are they significant at all?
Some say yes; others think perhaps an albino tiger isn't all that pertinent, when we can (soon) create a pink polka-dot tiger that fetches your slippers.
